EFTHALIA MERCANTILE PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY NANDAN MERCANTILE PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-8(2), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 619/KOL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 October 2020AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the lower appellate orders were passed without proper discussion of evidence and that the Assessing Officer relied on statements collected behind the assessee's back. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against additions made to its income, including share application/premium sums and section 14A disallowances. The lower appellate orders were passed ex parte without discussing the evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the lower appellate authorities properly considered the evidence and whether the additions were made based on proper verification of share transactions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 14A,Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 250(6),Section 131

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A”

Before: SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM & SHRI S. S. GODARA, JM

For Appellant: Shri M. D. Shah, AR
Hearing: 30/09/2020Pronounced: 14/10/2020

Appellant by : Shri M. D. Shah, AR Respondent by : Shri Ram Bilash Meena, CIT-DR सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 30/09/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 14/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: These assessee’s two appeals for assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) - 15, Kolkata & Commissioner of Income Tax (A) - 3, Kolkata’s separate orders; dated 28.03.2019 & 21.03.2017, passed in Case No.286/CIT(A)-15/18-19/Cir-8(2)/R&T/KOL & 729/CIT(A)- 3/DCIT,C-8(1)/Kol/15-16 involving proceedings u/s 147/143(3) & 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 respectively; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case files perused.

2.

The assessee’s identical twin substantive grounds in both these appeals seek to reverse the lower authorities’ action treating its share application/premium sum of Rs.13,60,00,000/- as section 68 unexplained cash credits and section 14A disallowance of Rs.4,476/- in former and similar share capital/premium sum of Rs.9,02,00,000/- followed by unsecured loans added of Rs.1,58,61,644/- and section 14A disallowance of Rs.39,086/-; assessment year wise, respectively. We notice at the outset with the able assistance of both the learned representatives that Efthalia Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 the lower appellate orders under challenge; passed ex parte, the impugned additions on merits in paras 3.8 and 4 to 7; respectively in these assessment years without discussing the corresponding detailed evidence as required u/s 250(6) of the Act requiring framing of points of determination followed by an elaborate discussion thereupon as per law.

3.

Learned counsel next submitted that Assessing Officer in both these cases has gone by the alleged statements collected at assessee’s back whilst carrying out the necessary enquiries for verification of the investor parties in Mumbai. He invited our attention to para 3 in assessment order dated 29.03.2015 pertaining to assessment year 2012-13 to this effect. These clinching aspects have gone unrebutted from the Revenue side. Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s grievances raised in these two appeals back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh adjudication on merits so as to verify identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the investor parties having subscribed to the assessee’s share capital. Learned counsel lastly made a very fair statement that the assessee also could not respond to section 131 notices issued at the Assessing Officer’s behest. He undertakes to comply with the same in the consequential proceedings as well. We therefore restore all the issues raised in these two appeals back to the Assessing Officer in light of the above specific observations.

4.

These assessee’s two appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →